When I think about humanity I only really see two choices in the long term.

Either we reach a global equilibrium where we have some mechanism for “maintaining the population at a set level”, whatever that mechanism is (I
can only think of some fairly frightening scenarios to reach that equilibrium), and what is the actual number? Some people think five hundred million
is the number (ie. Georgia Guidestones)... whatever.

Down this path we have to have a global system/government to monitor and control population, and it seems to me this can only be achieved through
fairly fascist means.

While eventually the remaining people, in a system like this, may be “happy” once they understood the “necessity” of maintenance on a global
scale… but it wouldn't exactly be freedom. I also think down this path is stagnation and eventual death (most likely not of all humans, but
definitely a fairly advanced technological age) of known society, potentially knocking us back hundreds or thousands of years.

Down the other path we have acceptance of the parasitic nature of the organism of humanity, and its constant striving for growth and expansion. It is
a fundamental aspect of humans to want to propagate… and even if we know the resources aren't necessarily there, we just can’t help ourselves…
it’s programmed into us.

This growth fundamentally takes resources… we have to consume to grow. Since it’s in our nature and we can’t stop, we either need to be culled
(first choice mentioned above), or we will eventually grow to the point we consume all the sustaining resources and fizzle out that way.

Down the first path we survive but have to radically change society, and lose the population mass to maintain critical masses of
people/population/sociological ideas/theological disagreements/industry/research/ideas/communication/etc…. we need all of that to come up with the
solutions that may allow us to develop the technology to be able to head down the second path… and survive.

These are some of my thoughts (only a brief summary) on the posed question.

puzzlesphere
I’ll qualify my questions slightly with some of my own perspectives.

When I think about humanity I only really see two choices in the long term.

Either we reach a global equilibrium where we have some mechanism for “maintaining the population at a set level”, whatever that mechanism is (I
can only think of some fairly frightening scenarios to reach that equilibrium), and what is the actual number? Some people think five hundred million
is the number (ie. Georgia Guidestones)... whatever.

Down this path we have to have a global system/government to monitor and control population, and it seems to me this can only be achieved through
fairly fascist means.

While eventually the remaining people, in a system like this, may be “happy” once they understood the “necessity” of maintenance on a global
scale… but it wouldn't exactly be freedom. I also think down this path is stagnation and eventual death (most likely not of all humans, but
definitely a fairly advanced technological age) of known society, potentially knocking us back hundreds or thousands of years.

Down the other path we have acceptance of the parasitic nature of the organism of humanity, and its constant striving for growth and expansion. It is
a fundamental aspect of humans to want to propagate… and even if we know the resources aren't necessarily there, we just can’t help ourselves…
it’s programmed into us.

This growth fundamentally takes resources… we have to consume to grow. Since it’s in our nature and we can’t stop, we either need to be culled
(first choice mentioned above), or we will eventually grow to the point we consume all the sustaining resources and fizzle out that way.

Looks bleak…

edit on 5-9-2013 by puzzlesphere because: (no reason given)

Was there a question here? See, I used a "?" To indicate I was asking a question.

Originally posted by kmb08753
Was there a question here? See, I used a "?" To indicate I was asking a question.

Originally posted by puzzlesphere
What’s the long term purpose of humanity? Is it to maintain a balanced population in harmony with nature and the earth?... Or is it to grow our
population, and by the very nature of growth consume?

edit on 5-9-2013 by puzzlesphere because: (no reason given)

There was a question ( ... and what is the actual number?) but what you quoted isn't the OP, the OP had the actual question I asked... in fact 3 of
them... the post you quoted was my own perspective on the questions... no need to be condescending. ;-j

Given that if way stay solely on this planet we are either going to keep expanding and eventually use all the resources and reset society that way or
we have to find a way to maintain population levels in a sustainable way.

I was asking whether, as a species, we should cull ourselves to maintain a sustainable system or should we expand relentlessly regardless of the
repercussions.

Originally posted by kmb08753
Was there a question here? See, I used a "?" To indicate I was asking a question.

Originally posted by puzzlesphere
What’s the long term purpose of humanity? Is it to maintain a balanced population in harmony with nature and the earth?... Or is it to grow our
population, and by the very nature of growth consume?

edit on 5-9-2013 by puzzlesphere because: (no reason given)

There was a question ( ... and what is the actual number?) but what you quoted isn't the OP, the OP had the actual question I asked... in fact 3 of
them... the post you quoted was my own perspective on the questions... no need to be condescending. ;-j

Given that if way stay solely on this planet we are either going to keep expanding and eventually use all the resources and reset society that way or
we have to find a way to maintain population levels in a sustainable way.

I was asking whether, as a species, we should cull ourselves to maintain a sustainable system or should we expand relentlessly regardless of the
repercussions.

Wrong scope then.

On a deeper level, like Zanti Misfit's video, biology needs a certain amount of resources to operate. Whether it is locomotion and mechanical
dexterity(animals, insects, birds, bacteria...) or slow growth and self generation(plants), you need a certain measurement of energy and matter to
exist. You can consume it literally and convert it to proteins and sugars. There are other biological models.

Specifically human civilization...
We will need to consider all humans as one group and harness all of earth's resources for all people. Depending on which report you read, that should
help support a much larger civilization. Maybe 8-10 trillion?
Beyond that, with the best minds of all of humanity, we can develop technologies like vertical farming structures, safe, improved, crops and
livestock, and safe energy infrastructures. We could probably squeeze out another 4 trillion worth of resources.

Past that we would need to expand beyond our planet. First into our solar system. Orbital platforms for humans. Big ones. We could populate a few
places, like mars and maybe a few moons. With years of terraforming they could be habitable. Mining the others will get us enough to build whatever we
need.

Without taking the first step of recognizing all of humanity as one group, we will be plagued by a fractured, unstable and unsustainable approach.
War will take care of the culling. People will always fight for resources to power their civilization. Wait until the oil runs out. I am not sure i
will be alive to see it. Not sure i want to be.

I've been thinking about this quite alot lately! And I've come across a link in wikapedia en.m.wikipedia.org...
The scale kina opened my eyes up to actually how much there is out there we could consume one day even just in our solar system!!! It's massive! And
theirs the great moons surrounding some of these gas giants that are literally gems for us to use for energy including a whole moon made of methane
etc!!! I just hope we can as you said get our minds as one to think as one to really get organized!!! We have a long time left to consume here on
earth to get our buts into gear for expanding into our solar system and further!

puzzlesphere
I've been thinking a lot recently about the nature of any "troubles" humanity may be facing, and I wanted to pose this one (three part) question for
consideration.

What’s the long term purpose of humanity? Is it to maintain a balanced population in harmony with nature and the earth?... Or is it to grow our
population, and by the very nature of growth consume?

edit on 5-9-2013 by puzzlesphere because: (no reason given)

Is it wrong to consume a lifeless rock and then move on to another one, if you've calculated it to be safe and prosperous?

Is it wrong to leave some things to fate? Like launching yourself into the unknown, somewhat unsure of your ability to survive?

Is it wrong to eat other lifeforms?

Is it wrong to unknowingly step on bugs or to kill them if they're in our homes?

Is it wrong to be prejudiced or ignorant or unknowingly wrong?

Where is this place perfection, can you give me directions?

I think some of our purpose is encoded in our genetics and expressed in our body and in our instincts, but the remainder is for us to define. For
example, we have to include food and water and other basic needs in our purpose or we'll die, unless we can find some method to create exceptions or
alternatives.

There're some things we can't do, given our limitations, whether they be in our body or in our environment. For example, if I'm born in a country
experiencing genocide and war and starvation, I can't then choose to be born in a different country without those things. If i'm born a male, I can't
then choose to be born a female. If I'm born as a frog, I probably can't become an astronaut. If I'm born severely mentally disabled, I probably won't
become the next Einstein or Steve Fossett. Some people can have the cards go exactly their way while exerting enormous amounts of effort and almost do
the impossible, but even then the things we're born with and into still have a profound impact on our ability to mold our destiny.

If a frog is born and defines its purpose to become an astronaut, that's its free will to do so, but it's not likely to succeed in achieving it. In
fact, I'm unsure if a frog can even conceive being an astronaut, but I can't say it's impossible. Either way, if it can't conceive it then it can't
define it as its purpose.

Yeah I know and I guess the only thing we can be is human and everything that encompasses. Without complication accepting ourselfs and place in this
world. We are what we are and trying to be anything else is just like your saying, doomed to fail as we are Bourne to consume and grow and accede
beond what another can. Along with that comes compassion and creativity etc. ultimately just maintaining at a certain sustainable level is not in our
nature. I believe that this world and universe is for the taking for whoever has the ability to do it. We don't ask to live or be the way we are so
why try to be something other than what we are.

I think this place of perfection is to be exactly who we are with no pretense or judgement on the very nature of who we are. Just like everything else
in the universe doing what it was bourn to do and like other things like matter and stars etc doing what the laws of physics commands on them.

But also I guess trying to change ones purpose like the frog would be apart of its purpose or else it wouldn't be trying even if is cant achieve it
and eventually over time and many generations evolution will change that frog to be able to eventually so in a respect its a very dynamic and relative
thing what ur trying to get at. I like the thought

My opinion is Earth will eventually become something like Europe or China, as it ages. This whole planet will be wired up for communication and
transport of goods and services. If humanity was stuck here we'd probably either die from the boredom or become extinct when a large comet collides
with us. Thing is, I don't think humanity is stuck here. Many people are born to be explorers or just turn out to be and won't embrace being marooned
here. I think we'll invent the necessary technologies to leave and colonize other moons and planets. I think we'll also create space habitats inside
asteroids or comets. And because of space/time considerations, Earth will be unable to control all of it with its iron grip. This will likely result
in conflicts between Earth and other colonies nearby. It's interesting how space/time factors into all this. As soon as some distance and time
separates groups of people, the iron grip loses some of its hold and the state becomes increasingly unable to maintain it.

So what I'm saying is we're approaching a period whereupon time/space considerations will allow the entire Earth to be under an iron grip. This is
hinged on the technological advances which will emerge to enable it. Some recent examples would be information technologies and satellites and jet
engines and icbm's.

I think we as humans have the capacity to maintain and sustain our existence in good balance with nature and common sense. We've done it in the past
and in small numbers with good success - just take a look at Amish and Mennonite communities as recent examples of balanced living (from a
sustainability example, not the social or religious aspects). And with today's technology it surely is possible to live leaner, cleaner and with
minimal impact to the world around us.

However, that runs in stark contrast to the society we have built up in the past century which is driven by mass consumption and a reliance on
inefficient and costly means of energy production and transportation, primarily driven by capitalistic greed and the need for control. We as consumers
are encouraged to buy needless trinkets for amusement, obtain poorly-constructed items rather than repair existing ones, and invest in fossil
fuel-based modes of transportation; cars make more money than bicycles, $15 plastic osculating fans sell better than $50 metal ones, and the new
iPhone is coming out that takes better pictures than the old iPhone!

My point is humanity will continue to be a "grow and consume" entity as long as it is steered in that direction; we have been a "maintain and
sustain" society for much of our past and antiquity, and we can easily choose that path again if we want to, but cannot do so easily while our
present society is built upon consumption. That has to change first.

At this point in time, humanity is just not smart enough to maintain and sustain. People are going to keep on having babies and consume, consume,
consume. Disposable everything has led to this. Most don't even think about recycling, just throw it out and get a new one. It's just cheap plastic,
right? More people, more energy consumption, more irreplacable resources used. And no one thinks it will ever run out. But, look at oil. A huge
number of daily products are made from petroleum. This is just a partial list. www.ranken-energy.com...
That a bit over 3.5 BILLION gallons per day. Every day.
We could over populate and breath fumes from all the factories, power plants, cars, buses and trains it will take to transport that many. See more
land go to build infrastructure and less for farming. Seas over fished and ruined for centuries. Lakes and rivers poisioned by run off from farming
and factories. Erosion. Rain forests cleared, species wiped out. This is not even taking into account a natural disaster. Asteriod strike, solar
flare, pandemic disease, etc. Just us killing ourselves slowly.
Or....Put money into research and get the hell off this planet. Spread out to the Moon, Mars, Asteroid Belt [ where there are massive amounts of
resources ] to thrive and grow.
Since we don't have a space program any more, looks like we've taken the idiot's choice.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.